Can you Shadow Step vertically? Can you Shadow Step another person with you?

[Wolfsraine]

Just as the title says. Is it possible to say, grapple someone, jump as high as you can vertically, then at the peak, shadowstep another 60 feet up?

[Fwiffo86]

Just as the title says. Is it possible to say, grapple someone, jump as high as you can vertically, then at the peak, shadowstep another 60 feet up?

I see no reason not to allow this.

As far as dragging another person with you, I would say No.

[Eslin]

You can shadow step to anywhere within 60 feet you can see, but you can't take anyone else with you.

[Easy_Lee]

You can shadow step to anywhere within 60 feet you can see, but you can't take anyone else with you.

Where did you find the rule that says this?

In general, everything not explicitly disallowed is allowed. Furthermore, you do bring allong your gear, correct? It follows that you would bring along anything you are carrying, such as weapons.

Since grappling requires a free hand, we can assume grapplers are gripping the opponent. Since we have rules for dragging someone along with you in a grapple, we know it is possible to force another to move with you.

Certain teleport spells explicitly disallow teleportation of an unwilling target. Shadow step specifies no such limitations.

Therefore, if you are capable of both grappling an opponent and forcing them to move along with you, then you can take them with you into a shadow step.

[Wolfsraine]

Is there somewhere that specifically states that you cannot shadow step with someone you're holding on to? If not, I think an argument can be made to allow it.

[Yagyujubei]

the only reason I can think of to say that it wont work is that other teleport abilities actually specify that you may take someone with you and this one doesn't. following that logic I'm led to believe that if you were intended to be able to take someone with you it would be in the description.

the other point to note is that most (if not all, im AFB) teleportation abilities that allow you to bring others specify that the other person must be willing. so even if you were to allow shadow step to bring someone along, you couldn't take an enemy with you in my opinion.

I've though about this alot because suplexing an enemy from 90 feet in the air as my monks was an idea i latched onto immediately when reading about the class. at the very least my DM doesn't allow it, and honestly I don't think i would either as it's incredibly broken.

HOWEVER, theres no way a DM can get around you bringing a huge boulder up with you "because rocks are improvised weapons and they come along" and then dropping it on the enemy which does about the same thing, or just drop kicking someone from orbit.

but yeah, from a balance standpoint I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to be able to do 12d6+10 dmg to an enemy at level 6 for absolutely no cost.

[Jakinbandw]

Shadow Step
At 6th level, you gain the ability to step from one shadow into another. When you are in dim light or darkness, as a bonus action you can teleport up to 60 feet to an unoccupied space you can see that is also in dim light or darkness. You then have advantage on the first melee attack you make before the end of the turn

Doesn't say you can't. Considering that earlier on an ability specifically calls out that you can't bring anyone with you I see no reason why you can't as far as RAW. The other question is would it be unbalanced. Its 6d6 damage if you succeed on a grapple.

[Wolfsraine]

So this would technically be possible I think:

Grapple someone, assuming you succeed and have the movement to move 10 feet (or 5 if you have athlete) and jump vertically with your victim; Jump Height: 3 base + 5 mod = 8 * 3(assuming you have the jump spell) = 24 vertical leap... then shadow step up another 60 feet... for a grand total of 84 feet. Then hurl your grappled victim to the ground for 8d6 damage? Now how do we avoid taking that much damage ourselves? Can we land on the dude we just threw to break our fall and break his bones? Can I finish my attacks if I have multiple attacks? Can I regrapple said victim?

[Jakinbandw]

So this would technically be possible I think:

Grapple someone, assuming you succeed and have the movement to move 10 feet (or 5 if you have athlete) and jump vertically with your victim; Jump Height: 3 base + 5 mod = 8 * 3(assuming you have the jump spell) = 24 vertical leap... then shadow step up another 60 feet... for a grand total of 84 feet. Then hurl your grappled victim to the ground for 8d6 damage? Now how do we avoid taking that much damage ourselves? Can we land on the dude we just threw to break our fall and break his bones? Can I finish my attacks if I have multiple attacks? Can I regrapple said victim?

You're a monk. You have slow fall. Also if you want to get extra silly you could run up a nearby tree or wall first as well.

[Easy_Lee]

Now how do we avoid taking that much damage ourselves?

Monks have slow fall.

[Yagyujubei]

So this would technically be possible I think:

Grapple someone, assuming you succeed and have the movement to move 10 feet (or 5 if you have athlete) and jump vertically with your victim; Jump Height: 3 base + 5 mod = 8 * 3(assuming you have the jump spell) = 24 vertical leap... then shadow step up another 60 feet... for a grand total of 84 feet. Then hurl your grappled victim to the ground for 8d6 damage? Now how do we avoid taking that much damage ourselves? Can we land on the dude we just threw to break our fall and break his bones? Can I finish my attacks if I have multiple attacks? Can I regrapple said victim?

if the highest you can jump is >40 feet then there's no reason to do it assuming jump takes a full action (AFB) because otherwise you can just shadow step and attack twice on the way down. your attacks on the way down will add 2d6+10 which is greater than 3d6 obviously.

also you would want to land on top of the enemy anyway to increas the damage against them because an object falling on you causes damage for every (x) number of pounds it is(100 i think?). so saying you're 200 lbs you can add a few more dice onto the attack and (theoretically) reduce some of the fall damage since you're landing on something softer than ground.

can someone confirm those two things for me? jump costing an action, and the rules of dmg for stuff falling on you?

for some reason I want to say it's an additional d6 for each 100lbs from a thread about this before. if thats the case its 10d6+10 dmg for the round which is brokenly strong imho.

[heavyfuel]

Where did you find the rule that says this?

Probably in the ability description that says you can teleport up to 60ft.


In general, everything not explicitly disallowed is allowed.

This kind of thinking only leads to exploitable mechanics, especially when dealing with spells and similar abilities.

[Wolfsraine]

if the highest you can jump is >40 feet then there's no reason to do it assuming jump takes a full action (AFB) because otherwise you can just shadow step and attack twice on the way down. your attacks on the way down will add 2d6+10 which is greater than 3d6 obviously.

also you would want to land on top of the enemy anyway to increas the damage against them because an object falling on you causes damage for every (x) number of pounds it is(100 i think?). so saying you're 200 lbs you can add a few more dice onto the attack and (theoretically) reduce some of the fall damage since you're landing on something softer than ground.

can someone confirm those two things for me? jump costing an action, and the rules of dmg for stuff falling on you?

for some reason I want to say it's an additional d6 for each 100lbs from a thread about this before. if thats the case its 10d6+10 dmg for the round which is brokenly strong imho.

I don't believe jumping is an action, I just assumed it was part of movement. If anyone can confirm that would be great.

[AvatarVecna]

As I understand it, this is the process:

Action: Grapple target; if successful, jump as high as possible.
Bonus Action: Shadow Jump directly upwards.

Here's what needs to be RAW legal for this idea to be RAW legal:

1. Using your action to attempt a grapple and move.
2. Moving while grappling.
3. Jumping in place of moving.
4. Shadow Jumping straight up.
5. Bringing an unwilling target along during a Shadow Jump.

Answers...

1. Legal. This is a basic rule in 5e.

2. Legal. The PH section on grappling states "When you move, you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you, but your speed is halved, unless the creature is two or more sizes smaller than you". Thus, it's legal, but you're limited to half-speed.

3. Legal. The PH section on high jumping (paraphrased) says a running leap gives you a (3+Str mod) ft high jump, while a standing leap gives half that height. Furthermore, an appropriate Str (Athletics) check can increase this height, if the DM allows it.

4. Legal. Shadow Jump lets you teleport from one area of dim light/darkness to another, as long as you can see your target point and it is within 60 ft.

5. Questionably Legal. Firstly, Shadow Jump is technically not movement by the rules, it's teleportation, so it doesn't necessarily fall under the "can bring along your grappled target while moving" rule. Next, Shadow Jump is an at-will ability a Way of Shadow Monk receives at lvl 6; Plane Shift and Teleport are limited uses per day abilities certain casters can begin using at 13th lvl. Teleport specifies that only willing targets can be teleported, and objects can only be teleported if not wielded or carried by unwilling targets. Plane Shift, on the other hand, can explicitly target unwilling creatures; if used in such a way, the caster must succeed on a melee attack roll, and the target must fail a Charisma saving throw.

If I were DMing a 5e game, and a player brought this question to me, I'd probably allow them to attempt it...with conditions. Firstly, jumping while maintaining a grapple is RAW legal, but should be harder than normal; thus, I'd probably require an opposed check (PC's Strength: Athletics check vs. targets Strength: Athletics or Dexterity: Acrobatics check) to jump while maintaining a grapple. Then, when they attempted to teleport up, the target would receive a save (DC 8+proficiency+Wis mod) to avoid being brought along (not sure what kind of save, but my current preference is Dex).

If the target loses the opposed roll, and fails the save, they deserve whatever falling damage is coming their way, because this is an awesome idea, and I don't want to punish players for having an awesome idea. Now, if they start abusing it...Mr. Angry DM comes out:smallannoyed:.

[Yagyujubei]

here's the tricky thing though, if you can bring someone along just by the logic that you bring your clothes and weapons which are touching you then whose to say you have to grapple in the first place. just touching an enemy would be enough to teleport them with you.

then you're both in the air and would certainly get advantage due to the surprise the enemy would surely experience upon suddenly being in the air so you could do anything with almost assured success at the point.

[Easy_Lee]

This kind of thinking only leads to exploitable mechanics, especially when dealing with spells and similar abilities.

You mean creativity on the part of the players. If we assume the inverse, that you can only do what you are told you may do, then the game becomes a complicated version of tic tac toe.

Let me explain something here, just to clear the air.

If your player finds a creative way to get more out of a mechanic than the norm, that is not an exploit.
If your player does something allowed by the rules which the developers did not intend, that is not an exploit.
If your player does something that you didn't think of, that is not an exploit.

If a player does something you didn't think of, the only thing that means is that you don't understand the game as well as you should. As the DM, you better know the mechanics top-to-bottom. Why? So whenever one of your players pulls out a strategy, you can counter it if you need to in order to ensure a challenge.

How do you counter a player trying to shadow dive someone like above? It's freaking easy. Make the foe too heavy to carry. Make the foe a better grappler than your player, or immune to grappling. Give the foe an ability like misty escape so it can escape the grapple attempt.

Anything your players think of can be countered. Ask someone like me and I'll come up with a dozen counter-strategies on the spot. I'd expect nothing less from other DMs.

And your players will appreciate a counter-strategy much more than they will appreciate being told "no" every time they do something creative.

[AvatarVecna]

here's the tricky thing though, if you can bring someone along just by the logic that you bring your clothes and weapons which are touching you then whose to say you have to grapple in the first place. just touching an enemy would be enough to teleport them with you.

then you're both in the air and would certainly get advantage due to the surprise the enemy would surely experience upon suddenly being in the air so you could do anything with almost assured success at the point.

Not quite. D&D Next is an interesting system in that it leaves a lot of stuff up to DM judgement, rather than trying to explicitly list every possibility. Teleport and Plane Shift each explicitly state that you can bring others along with you, but requires them to be willing; Shadow Jump only mentions you, so a perfectly reasonable RAW interpretation is that you can't bring others along under any circumstances. If the DM's willing to work with you on this, great; that said, your default assumption shouldn't be that the DM will allow at-will no-save teleporting an enemy up 60 ft.

In a similar vein, it might be reasonable for a ninja to grab their opponent, shadow jump upwards, and drive their opponent into the ground to great effect (under my suggested houserule for it, it wouldn't be very effective against other ninjas, but it would still be so freaking sweet). What would not be reasonable is to say "if I touch them, I can teleport us both up 60 ft": allowing a character to have an at-will no-save ability to teleport an enemy up 60 ft by succeeding on a grapple check is pretty questionable; not even requiring a grapple check or attack roll is just plain stupid. No sane DM would allow it.

[Shadow]

2 If your player does something allowed by the rules which the developers did not intend, that is not an exploit.

Umm.... Yes. It is.
That is basically the exact definition of a game mechanics exploit.
It was not intended to work that way, but the mechanics allow it anyway.
If something is working as designed, but not as intended, that is EXACTLY the definition of a game mechanics exploit.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The Air Bud Rule* is not how you interpret holes in the rules. The DM is how you interpret holes in the rules. So in order to actually do this, you'd need to provide actual textual support that suggests

1. You can bring a creature with you while you shadow jump.
2. Said creature need not be willing.

There may be similar cases matching 1, but I'm not aware of any cases matching both 1 and 2.

*The Airbud Rule is pretty much exactly what Easy_Lee posted:
In general, everything not explicitly disallowed is allowed.My level 1 fighter isn't explicitly disallowed to shoot lasers from his eyes with arbitrary range as a free action that auto-hits for arbitrary damage, so he can! Except that's not how it works. The rules say you can do a particular thing; if you want to do more than what the rules actually say you can do, you ask the DM. If you don't like the fact that 5e provides wayyyyy to many holes and forces the DM to pull rulings out their pigu every other second, try to find a 3e game. Then fail, grumble, and go back to 5e. Wait, I just described my own experience.

[heavyfuel]

snip

The boldening of your third bullet point is implying something that isn't true. You're implying that I dislike if my players do something I don't expect thm to do and that I consider it an exploit when the reality is quite the contrary: I really enjoy when a player comes up with a completely unexpected idea, and in most cases I reward such behaviors (heck, 5e even gave the Inpiration feature for these situations). Also I've abandoned the idea that you need a feat to do something like it was in 3.x, and made ability and skill checks able to do much more

I do, however, think spells and similar abilities are limited to exactly what they say they do. I'm yet to run in this issue in 5e, so here's an example from a 3.5 table: There's a spell that basically transforms your arm into 3 tentacles made of shadow that attack 1 creature each. My player argued that, because there was nothing forbidding him, he could swing his arm in an arc and attack every creature there. No. The spell doesn't say you can do it, you can't do it.

As I said before, the same thing doesn't apply to skills and other mundane ways of interacting with the world, but spells and similar abilities are powerful enough as they are without the DM giving them even more power

But your point doesn't matter as this isn't a case of "creative use" of anything, it's not reading the freaking ability that says you get to teleport. In what world do you live in where "you" means "you and whoever else you also happens to be grappling with"?

Edit: Also, your point that:


Make the foe too heavy to carry. Make the foe a better grappler than your player, or immune to grappling. Give the foe an ability like misty escape so it can escape the grapple attempt. [...] I'd expect nothing less from other DMs.

That's not the mark of a good DM. If your player is good at something, you shouldn't fiat the problem away. If a player keeps using Guidance over and over again, you shouldn't raise every DC by 5. Either talk to the player OOC, or ban the freaking thing, but you should NEVER make your players' choices meaningless.

Edit: Shadow and GoodbyeSoberDay made some really good points as well, and I wholeheartdly agree with both of them

[Slipperychicken]

This idea is so anime. It's like something you'd expect from a fighting game. I love it :smallbiggrin:

If you still have some spare attacks once you teleport into the air, see if you can't whack him once or twice on the way down. The only thing this is missing is some kind of air-juggle effect to extend his fall.

[Envyus]

It says YOU can teleport so I assume you can't bring others with you.

[Ashrym]

It doesn't say you can't either. Just like it doesn't say you can take your equipment that you are carrying with you. Not saying you can't doesn't necessarily mean you can't, and the real question is, if you can carry it, does it count along with your equipment et al as part of the ability.

Grappling states drag or carry. What a person carries generally goes with him, and generally that's one creature limit. The target already failed an appropriate check as part of the grapple so it seems fair enough. There's also the light condition in the area so if the creature has a light source it's generally not possible until after the light is dealt with anyway, and the monk cannot use darkness to create a shadow for the shadow step like some people state because he needs to be able to see the target location to where he wishes to step, and darkvision doesn't work to see out of his own darkness (unless he splashes warlock for devil's sight).

Jumping is more complicated. Movement is halved from the grappling to start. I would enforce encumbrance rules in this case, and applied the weight of the target because he is being carried. 5*STR is the encumbered limite and costs 10 ft of movement after halving. This stops most characters already from applying jump movement because even 20 STR is 100 lbs to cause the movement penalty. 10*STR is heavily encumbered and costs 20 ft of movement after the halving. So a monk (DEX/WIS) is likely heavily encumbered carrying pretty much anyone. It takes 10 ft of movement before the jump so a 20th level monk with a 60 ft movement drops to 30 ft drops to 10 ft, and after using 10 ft of movement has none left to actually jump with, or skips 10 ft of movement for a standing jump and jumps (3+STR Mod)/2 ft to maximum of 10 ft of remaining movement (not likely). If it's not worth it on a 20th level monk it's not worth considering and I would go with no jumping distance.

So, if there was a shadow, and if there was another shadow within 60 ft that was visible up in the air, and if the grapple and forced movement were successful to that shadow, then I would allow what I'm going to be calling the "bamf attack".

[Balor777]

This is what came into my mind:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FrEiyRO7xHs&feature=player_detailpage#t=35

[Easy_Lee]

Umm.... Yes. It is.
That is basically the exact definition of a game mechanics exploit.
It was not intended to work that way, but the mechanics allow it anyway.
If something is working as designed, but not as intended, that is EXACTLY the definition of a game mechanics exploit.

That's debatable. Combos in the original street fighter weren't intended, but were part of the game and a big part of the meta. Exploit? Unintended, so under your definition yes. My definition of an exploit actually takes the word's connotation into consideration; the connotation that exploits are negative.

So tell me Shadow, when a monk gives up a full round's worth of attacks in the hopes of maybe dealing 31.5 damage (9d6) max, and has fun doing it, just who is the victim?

D&D exploits mean someone is being a munchkin, using nothing but the absolute best of poorly tested mechanics to reap a benefit that eclipses other players. I have yet to see a single instance where something even remotely like that is possible in 5e. For the mechanic at hand, the most damage a player is going to get out of it is far less than the damage they would get as a sorcerer quickening or twinning cantrips. There's nothing broken, exploitive, or munchkin-esque about this.

[Fwiffo86]

here's the tricky thing though, if you can bring someone along just by the logic that you bring your clothes and weapons which are touching you then whose to say you have to grapple in the first place. just touching an enemy would be enough to teleport them with you.

then you're both in the air and would certainly get advantage due to the surprise the enemy would surely experience upon suddenly being in the air so you could do anything with almost assured success at the point.

Your items and clothing weigh significantly less than another person, all of their clothing and belongings. This is not a valid argument in my opinion.

I would allow the grapple teleslam, save throw required. IF they make the save (highly likely given the 8+PB+WIS) they remain there, and the monk automatically breaks the grapple.

[Yagyujubei]

im gonna have to go with shadow on this one actually. for example magic jar shenanigans, infinite simulacrums, or the infamous find mount spell doubling fit his description exactly. they work as RAW so technically they're legal from a mechanical standpoint, but clearly they have very powerful uses that weren't intended by the devs.

shadow jump tricks are certainly MUCH less broken than some other exploitable stuff, but I would still call it one, especially since it can be used for more damage than what you said if you REALLY let it slide at face value.

because who is to say that you can't take a 2000lb boulder with you and flatten the enemy like a pancake? weight isn't a factor in the teleport since it isn't traditional physical movement.

"but you cant carry that much weight so it wouldn't work"

but according to those supporting the ability to take those with you, if the description doesn't say you CANT do it then obviously you can.

you people are opening a huuuuuge can of worms with that kinda mindset. and of course then you say "well the DM wouldn't allow that, so no"

but then where do you draw the line? where one person thinks is "reasonable"? something tells me operating that way is unlikely to make everyone involved happy in the end.

DITE: @fwiffo thats exactly my point though. it doesn't say that you can only teleport with "x" amount of weight, and you aren't grappling your clothes, so why do you have to grapple a person to get the same effect? slippery slippery slope.

[heavyfuel]

It doesn't say you can't either. Just like it doesn't say you can take your equipment that you are carrying with you. Not saying you can't doesn't necessarily mean you can't, and the real question is, if you can carry it, does it count along with your equipment et al as part of the ability.

Just because an ability doesn't say you can't do something, doesn't mean you can. See GoodbyeSoberDay's Air Bud Rule in this very thread. Sure, by strict RAW you can't even carry equipment since this edition doesn't seem to make the distinction that "you" = "you + equipment". But equipment are objects, not creatures. And no. Other creatures don't count as freaking equipment. Why would they?

[Slipperychicken]

If my monk was carrying a 200lb sack of potatoes, could he take it with him while using shadow step? What if the monk also had a wizard's rat familiar in his pocket? What if a stirge was attached to the monk?


I think I'd support a monk being able to shadow step with carried equipment and creatures, so long as their combined weight doesn't exceed his maximum load.

[Feldarove]

That's debatable. Combos in the original street fighter weren't intended, but were part of the game and a big part of the meta. Exploit? Unintended, so under your definition yes. My definition of an exploit actually takes the word's connotation into consideration; the connotation that exploits are negative.

So tell me Shadow, when a monk gives up a full round's worth of attacks in the hopes of maybe dealing 31.5 damage (9d6) max, and has fun doing it, just who is the victim?

D&D exploits mean someone is being a munchkin, using nothing but the absolute best of poorly tested mechanics to reap a benefit that eclipses other players. I have yet to see a single instance where something even remotely like that is possible in 5e. For the mechanic at hand, the most damage a player is going to get out of it is far less than the damage they would get as a sorcerer quickening or twinning cantrips. There's nothing broken, exploitive, or munchkin-esque about this.

Just curious Easy Lee, what would you say is an exploit?

I would say that the combined rule of can't exceed carrying capacity (or whatever its called in 5e) and an unwilling creature making a save vs Monk save DC would be acceptable. I would say the save would be str based because you are already grappled, so you aren't trying to wiggle free of it (dex), you are now trying to resist being moved. With these parameters in place, along with the requirements

I think it is the RAI that only you can shadow step (and your equipment). I would allow someone to bring an object or person (based on above limitations) because it is neat and like people are pointing out, its not all that broken/exploitative .

However, if you don't set limitations, a 2000 lb rock is just the beginning of trouble. What if I hold onto the anchor or a large galley? Can I shadowstep the ship? What if I hold onto the door handle to the cathedral? Can I launch a church? What if I stick my fist in the dirt? Can I throw the whole world at the moon?!

As far as rewarding creativity....yes its creative, but let's be honest, WHO DOESN'T immediately think of this when they read that power?!

[Psyren]

It doesn't say you can't either. Just like it doesn't say you can take your equipment that you are carrying with you.

So 5e doesn't have attended items rules?

[Ashrym]

So 5e doesn't have attended items rules?

Attended items are normally specified within each effect and not a general rule unless I missed it. If someone else was carrying the person then that would make the person an attended item. :-D

The conditions seem strict enough in the shadow req's for me to allow it, particularly when it's foiled by torches, lanterns, cantrips, and sunshine.

[Easy_Lee]

Just curious Easy Lee, what would you say is an exploit?

Off-topic, any unfairly advantageous usage of mechanics. By unfairly I mean there is no equal or counter to the technique. Take shadowcraft mages in 3.5. They could, by design, make partially real illusory copies of spells. That led to free wishes that were real enough to be the true thing. It's not really an exploit by the traditional definition, since partially real spells were intended. But the fact that they could do that meant that anyone else not playing with a similarly broken strategy could barely contribute. I'd call that an exploit.

Compare that to master thrower rogues from 3.5. You could, after 13 or so, throw dozens of skip rocks per round, hitting multiple targets' touch AC with sneak attack damage on every one. That probably wasn't intended. But, in 3.5, you had to do that kind of thing in order to keep up with your party members if they were casters.

In short, I think whether a tactic is exploitive or not depends heavily on the situation in which it's used. Exploit has a very negative connotation, particularly in D&D, which is why I feel that distinction should be made.

On topic, I agree the carrying weight rule is reasonable. Bear in mind that the monk has to select a target no more than one size larger, succeed on a hit, succeed on a grapple, use his bonus action, and have shadows conveniently placed at both the launch point and destination in order to pull this trick off at a minimum, possibly adding a jump check.

With requirements like that, and considering how low most Monks' grapple checks are anyway, combined with a maximum potential damage of about 9d6 in ideal circumstances, the only way I can see this trick being potentially useful is if it's used with hazards. Teleporting someone into a cage or over a pit of lava could be useful, but those are extremely situational (and, most importantly, would make for a great story).

[Feldarove]

Wasn't trying to get off topic. I think understanding your definition of an exploit in the game was a helpful part of understanding if shadowstep either fits or doesn't fit that definition. You had excluded several definitions you gave for exploits, so I was curious as to what you actually thought was an exploit.

I get, and agree with what you are saying. Yes, technically using shadowstep to teleport someone and throw them to the ground is an exploit, but its not game breaking (in its general use). If the players wants to do it and it doesn't outshine other party members, why not?! I think some people would argue that you create a slippery slope. Sure maybe just shadowstepping someone 60 ft up and throwing them to the ground is okay, but now your other party member gets a portable hole and fills it with acid, or sharp rocks. Yes you can do these things with just grappling, but you get the idea. Once again, I am totally cool with the concept.

[Easy_Lee]

Wasn't trying to get off topic. I think understanding your definition of an exploit in the game was a helpful part of understanding if shadowstep either fits or doesn't fit that definition. You had excluded several definitions you gave for exploits, so I was curious as to what you actually thought was an exploit.

I get, and agree with what you are saying. Yes, technically using shadowstep to teleport someone and throw them to the ground is an exploit, but its not game breaking (in its general use). If the players wants to do it and it doesn't outshine other party members, why not?! I think some people would argue that you create a slippery slope. Sure maybe just shadowstepping someone 60 ft up and throwing them to the ground is okay, but now your other party member gets a portable hole and fills it with acid, or sharp rocks. Yes you can do these things with just grappling, but you get the idea. Once again, I am totally cool with the concept.

Gotcha, and yeah I understand where you're coming from. That said, the way I see it is that my players are going to find the optimal, ideal, or "exploitive" strategies as much as they collectively want. Some players are super-traditional, playing the game like it's a LoTR book. Others are more gamist, for lack of a better term, and will find the best tactics. My approach, as a DM, is to know all of the tricks before my players do. That way I can plan counters for any tactic my players adopt that would make the game too easy. In other words, I raise or lower the bar to match my players.

As I said, in the case of this particular trick it's fairly easy to counter or even throw back at the players. Other tactics, such as a player using warlock 2 / sorcerer X, might take a more active approach. At the end of the day, I think D&D is meant to be fun. Anything cool or unique, like shadow monks shadowstep-suplexing people is A-okay in my games. If I wanted to stop a player from doing it, I'd just send an ogre shadow monk at the party and see if they could stop him from suplexing them into spikes. The game ain't fun if it ain't a challenge.

[Fwiffo86]

Off-topic, any unfairly advantageous usage of mechanics. By unfairly I mean there is no equal or counter to the technique.

I can see that your definition of exploit and mine are vastly different.

[Easy_Lee]

I can see that your definition of exploit and mine are vastly different.

No doubt, which is likely due to the fact that I don't think any game should be limited to what the developers intended. If the game mechanics allow it, and it doesn't create an unfair advantage (it doesn't), then I don't see what's wrong with shadow monks doing this.

[Fwiffo86]

No doubt, which is likely due to the fact that I don't think any game should be limited to what the developers intended. If the game mechanics allow it, and it doesn't create an unfair advantage (it doesn't), then I don't see what's wrong with shadow monks doing this.

I don't see a problem with the doing it either. I was simply commenting that your definition of exploit is very different from mine.

[Vogonjeltz]

No. As heavfuel notes, the ability only references the character. Also, there would need to be a shadow 60 feet in the air and one from the location moved from.

By way of comparison, look at Teleport. It says you (character) and up to eight other creatures. Shadow Step specifically just says You (character), so shadow stepping another person is specifically disallowed by the written rules.

[Easy_Lee]

No. As heavfuel notes, the ability only references the character. Also, there would need to be a shadow 60 feet in the air and one from the location moved from.

By way of comparison, look at Teleport. It says you (character) and up to eight other creatures. Shadow Step specifically just says You (character), so shadow stepping another person is specifically disallowed by the written rules.

Guess that means your possessions, clothing, weapons, and particularly any sentient items you're carrying are left behind. After all, the ability doesn't specifically mention them.

No, the reason it works is because teleport and other forms of movement bring along anything you are carrying unless they explicitly say they don't. Successfully grapple someone, and you can drag them along with you wherever you go, just like if they were in your pocket.

In other words, give up on trying to prove it doesn't work because the book doesn't specifically disallow it. All actions not specifically disallowed by the rules / system are assumed to be possible, and that especially includes creative usage of spells and abilities (a big part of D&D's appeal for many of us).

[Vogonjeltz]

Guess that means your possessions, clothing, weapons, and particularly any sentient items you're carrying are left behind. After all, the ability doesn't specifically mention them.

You make a great case for having the monk arrive naked.


No, the reason it works is because teleport and other forms of movement bring along anything you are carrying unless they explicitly say they don't. Successfully grapple someone, and you can drag them along with you wherever you go, just like if they were in your pocket.

Citation? Teleport isn't a form of movement, it's a spell. It also specifies what gets taken along. So, interestingly, does grapple. Shadow step is specific in that the character alone moves, no additional persons (as is specified in grapple AND teleport).


In other words, give up on trying to prove it doesn't work because the book doesn't specifically disallow it. All actions not specifically disallowed by the rules / system are assumed to be possible, and that especially includes creative usage of spells and abilities (a big part of D&D's appeal for many of us).

Careless reading doesn't constitute creativity.

[Easy_Lee]

A good rule of thumb for making a DM ruling is to ask yourself the following: am I being a complete and total ******* to my players by making this ruling? In other words, is this unfair to them, and does this fail to meet their expectations of the kind of game they wanted to play? If the answer is ever yes, you're not doing your job. Citation: Common sense.


You make a great case for having the monk arrive naked.

See above.

Recall I had said movement, magical or mundane, is assume to include anything you are carrying or are able to move with you. If you are on horseback and lasso someone's feet, then they will be dragged behind your horse as it gallops.


Citation?

Common sense. It does not matter what kind of movement, magical or mundane, shadow step is. Nor would it matter if it were a spell (it isn't). The move does not have a target, but involves transportation from one place to another. It doesn't even specify a target, beyond saying the monk can do it.

A creative player could very easily argue for teleporting another object without teleporting himself. Depending on the nature of the shadowstep, that might work. As is, we can assume his gear and things he is carrying go with him due to common sense, comparison with other movement, and the question we (as DMs) must ask ourselves which I listed above.


Careless reading doesn't constitute creativity.

Using the ability only in the way it was apparently intended constitutes the exact inverse of creativity. Creativity in D&D means doing things that others (especially the developers) would not / did not think of. This is one of those things.

Permit me to go off-topic a moment. Based on your response, I would guess you are a player who has been made irrelevant in a game by a better player / munchkin sometime in the past, perhaps during 3.5. I would also assume your DM was horrible to allow it to happen. That's the kind of thing that leads a person to say "no" anytime someone comes up with a creative use of an ability. I can only assume you've never DM'd, because if you had then we wouldn't be having this discussion.

We aren't trying to balance a video game, or an MMO, or even a board game. We aren't concerned with how a scenario might play out of players are able to run wild unsupervised. This is D&D, meaning there is a DM to adjudicate, challenge the players, and in general run the game. Playing against the players is not the DM's role (God Complex/sadism). Controlling every action the player makes or limiting them to a small number of choices is a good way to run your players off (railroading). These are the kinds of things only a DM will understand, and they're absolutely critical when making these kinds of rulings.

[Abithrios]

With reasonable assumptions about ac and difficulty of grappling, how does the expected damage per round compare?

6d6 has an average of 21, and I believe monks can attack 3 times in every round by the time this comes online. If they are giving up all those attacks to do this trick, it is probably a break even at best. A build that is good at this is also pretty MAD. You need str to grapple, dex and wis for AC, and con for hp. You probably also want a dip in rogue for expertise in athletics. I guess you could go dwarf and wear armor to reduce dex reliance, but you lose martial arts and unarmored movement.

If you do the calculation and find that the damage is too much better than simply attacking, add some limitations. For example, you could require the monk to let go of the target at the peak of the jump, requiring a new grapple each time. Or you could allow a saving throw to resist. I think CHA would be most relevant, as it represents how strong of a presence you have, and forced teleportation threatens to make you present somewhere else.

[CrusaderJoe]

A good rule of thumb for making a DM ruling is to ask yourself the following: am I being a complete and total ******* to my players by making this ruling? In other words, is this unfair to them, and does this fail to meet their expectations of the kind of game they wanted to play? If the answer is ever yes, you're not doing your job. Citation: Common sense.


You aren't using common sense. You are promoting the allowance of players doing anything and if you disagree with the players then you are being a bad DM.

That's bull crap.

I play by rule of cool a lot. My groups tend to play with rule of cool more so than others I would think.

But just because a DM says "No" doesn't mean they are working against the players or going into a god comolex (when a player is trying to exploit a spell or whatever).

Spells and such abilities do not runnoff the air bud clause. If you have to use the air bud clause in order to have an ability work in your favor then you are channeling Red Mage and are most likely (highly likely) trying to exploit an ability.

Common Sense says that Shadow Jump would work like other teleportation spells if any information is missing.

Your idea of common sense essentially allows me to say that Shadow Jump doesn't say I can't teleport inside of someone, inside of people is pretty shadowy, thus I can do it . I could totally just explode right out of them.*

* There is a 3.5 teleport spell that actually does this... A blood magic prestige class gives it to you.

[Easy_Lee]

You aren't using common sense. You are promoting the allowance of players doing anything and if you disagree with the players then you are being a bad DM.

(And a long post following which insinuates that Easy posted / believes a whole bunch of other stuff he didn't say)

Your first statement was not only unfounded, but untrue. I'm not promoting the allowance of anything. I'm promoting the allowance of anything that doesn't break the game or ruin it for others.

Just to educate you a bit on (what I think are) good DM practices, let's run down a few scenarios where a player asks a question and the (good) DM responds.

Q: Can I try to run up that wall?
A: Make an acrobatics check. Running up a wall is not game breaking, and it's reasonable for a skill check to attempt to mimic what could be done automatically with a spell, similar to knock vs. pick lock.

Q: Can I do molest that other player?
A: Absolutely not. It's completely possible and realistic, as in it's not against common sense or the rules. But nobody sits down at a D&D table to be molested. Players have certain expectations, and sometimes the game has to conform to those whether it's realistic or not.

Q: Can I try to take someone else along with me on my shadow step?
A: Since it's implied you take things you are carrying, and you can drag others with you during a grapple, the answer is yes as long as you succeed on a grapple first. The player will only gain 6d6 damage maximum for this maneuver, gives up both an attack and bonus action to do it, and subjects themselves to the same falling damage as the opponent. 6d6 (21) is barely higher than 2*(1d8+4) (17), which is the likely opportunity cost of this attack (higher levels / stats and magic items would close the gap further or even make this maneuver obsolete).

Again, the only way I can see this being used to great effect is if the player shadow stepped the enemy into a hazard, or an ally away from one. The former can easily be prevented by making the NPC win the grapple check if they have to, or a myriad of other counter-strategies that might be employed by the DM. The latter is something really cool that people would tell stories about, and isn't game-breaking either.

If all of that was too complicated or hypothetical for you, let me summarize. If your player wants to do something, and you don't have a compelling game-balance reason to stop them, then allow it. Pointlessly saying no to your players is comparable to a parent telling their child no without giving a reason. Except that your players are probably your age and are going to appreciate it even less. And, as I've shown, there's absolutely no reason to ban shadow step shenanigans.

[Myzz]

Shadow Step
at 6th level, you gain the ability to step from one shadow into another. When you are in dim light or darkness, as a bonus action you can teleport up to 60 ft to an unoccupied space you can see that is also in dim light or darkness. You then have advantage on the first melee attack you make before the end of the turn.

The description implies you should check Teleport, and apply the restrictions listed under Shadow Step to those of Teleport. Teleport does not allow you to teleport unwilling targets. You could Shadow Step up to 8 willing creatures, but no creatures that were unwilling.

So, yes you can teleport others using shadow step, but not any that are unwilling. To allow a 6th level ability to do something that the 7th level spell that is modeled after can't doesnt seem like a good idea. Especially when the 6th level ability is unlimited in its number of uses...

[CrusaderJoe]

The description implies you should check Teleport, and apply the restrictions listed under Shadow Step to those of Teleport. Teleport does not allow you to teleport unwilling targets. You could Shadow Step up to 8 willing creatures, but no creatures that were unwilling.

So, yes you can teleport others using shadow step, but not any that are unwilling. To allow a 6th level ability to do something that the 7th level spell that is modeled after can't doesnt seem like a good idea. Especially when the 6th level ability is unlimited in its number of uses...

Is Shadow Step modeled after Teleport or is it modeled after Misty Step or Dimensional Door?

Actually after reading them and thinking about how Shadow Step is At-Will and the others are of limited use... I'm under the impression that you can not bring along anyone with your Shadow Jump.

The answer really is to ask the Sage.

[Easy_Lee]

The answer really is to ask the Sage.

That's an answer, though I wonder if you are familiar with New Criticism.

New Criticism, as espoused by Cleanth Brooks, W. K. Wimsatt, T. S. Eliot, and others, argued that authorial intent is irrelevant to understanding a work of literature. W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley wrote in their essay The Intentional Fallacy: "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art." - source (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent)

Many readers believe an author's intent doesn't matter in the slightest when interpreting a work. I would argue the same is true of D&D. Rulings need to be made by the DM and for that particular game.

Making a single, General ruling about shadow step and how it is used, for example, may not be right for every game. But if we just go with whatever X developer says, that's all we're going to get.

[CrusaderJoe]

That's an answer, though I wonder if you are familiar with New Criticism.

New Criticism, as espoused by Cleanth Brooks, W. K. Wimsatt, T. S. Eliot, and others, argued that authorial intent is irrelevant to understanding a work of literature. W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley wrote in their essay The Intentional Fallacy: "the design or intention of the author is neither available nor desirable as a standard for judging the success of a work of literary art." - source (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorial_intent)

Many readers believe an author's intent doesn't matter in the slightest when interpreting a work. I would argue the same is true of D&D. Rulings need to be made by the DM and for that particular game.

Making a single, General ruling about shadow step and how it is used, for example, may not be right for every game. But if we just go with whatever X developer says, that's all we're going to get.

Hogwash. If author intent means nothing in a game then you devolve to Calvin Ball.

If you don't like what the creators have to say about their work that is fine, you can change it. But if the creators can explain their work so that people can reliably go from table to table with the same information and use it as intended... Then there is a ton of value in that.

[Easy_Lee]

Hogwash. If author intent means nothing in a game then you devolve to Calvin Ball.

If you don't like what the creators have to say about their work that is fine, you can change it. But if the creators can explain their work so that people can reliably go from table to table with the same information and use it as intended... Then there is a ton of value in that.

Not to get too far off topic, but I will respond to this one. At no point in the history of D&D could you expect the exact same rules and rulings (let alone house rules) at every table. 5E recognizes this, and thus encourages DMs to make rulings on almost everything, and even encourages a wide variety of optional rules (see the DMG).

I would like to further emphasize this point. If your game is the same at every table, then you're not playing D&D. You're not playing AD&D, 2e, you're definitely not playing 3e or 3.5, and you're not even playing the rules-heavy 4e. And your game doesn't even resemble 5e if it's the same everywhere. Rules and rulings have always varied by table.

We can expect anything directly stated in the book to be the same at most tables. Not all, but most. As an example, take versatile quarterstaff usage with dueling, a shield, and polearm mastery. By the book, it's 100% legit, but many DMs will disallow it for various reasons (see the many threads on the matter). Contrast that with using a whip to try and swing across a gap, Indiana-Jones-style. This is something we have no mention of in the book but which most DMs would probably allow players to attempt. After all, the book doesn't say that you can't do this. Bolded for emphasis because I believe this point is very important.

Now that I've (hopefully) convinced you that D&D 5e will not be played the same at every table, let's examine shadow step. Does the book say you can take passengers, willing or unwilling? No. Does the book say you can't? Once again, no. Like the whip example above, it's firmly up to the DM.

I think I've shown that the tactic is neither game breaking, easy to use, nor necessarily advantageous even if executed. Thus, there is no compelling game-balance reason to ban it. Exact rulings on whether it is usable and how it may be used will vary by table. For me personally, if it comes up I'll rule it as viable provided the user succeeds on a grapple check against the target.

[Myzz]

...I think I've shown that the tactic is neither game breaking, easy to use, nor necessarily advantageous even if executed. Thus, there is no compelling game-balance reason to ban it. Exact rulings on whether it is usable and how it may be used will vary by table. For me personally, if it comes up I'll rule it as viable provided the user succeeds on a grapple check against the target.

so a level 6 ability can force teleport a creature, where the level 7 spell of that name can not?

[Fwiffo86]

Now that I've (hopefully) convinced you that D&D 5e will not be played the same at every table, let's examine shadow step. Does the book say you can take passengers, willing or unwilling? No. Does the book say you can't? Once again, no. Like the whip example above, it's firmly up to the DM.


This holds up only if there is no related examples found in the same book from which to form conclusions. See Myzz's post about the level 7 teleport spell.

The whip example has no related examples to draw upon. Teleport does. Therefore I would examine what Teleport does in relation to character level before I settled on any ruling, house rule or not.

Claiming that because its not in the book its ok, or that because it doesn't specifically say it doesn't, is jumping the gun.

[Abithrios]

so a level 6 ability can force teleport a creature, where the level 7 spell of that name can not?

Allowing a character to teleport an enemy 60 feet upward without a save causes damage comparable to other options available to the character at the same level. Teleporting an enemy 100 miles upward is death to any enemy that cannot survive space, reentry, and landing. If you allow it, you should look at other instant death spells and provide similar limitations, because any enemy hit by a sufficiently powerful teleport will find itself somewhere incompatible with continued existence. Is that kind of power comparable to other level 7 spells?


This holds up only if there is no related examples found in the same book from which to form conclusions. See Myzz's post about the level 7 teleport spell.

The whip example has no related examples to draw upon. Teleport does. Therefore I would examine what Teleport does in relation to character level before I settled on any ruling, house rule or not.

Claiming that because its not in the book its ok, or that because it doesn't specifically say it doesn't, is jumping the gun.

Such passages can also be used as evidence that WotC intentionally left out such a clause from this ability because they wanted it to be legal. Personally, I think those two arguments cancel out, and unless there is a general rule we are missing (not a specific rule from a related, but distinct construct, such as the teleport spell), we have no PHB-based way of answering the question.

One thing that all sides of debates like this tend to ignore is that any method of rules interpretation that results in fun is valid, even if it has little or nothing to do with what the book and its authors say about the matter. I think allowing this trick with a simple limitation (new grapple every time you want to use it) allows for more fun, while not preventing other fun elsewhere. As a result, I think I would allow it, even if they release errata explicitly banning it.

[Easy_Lee]

This holds up only if there is no related examples found in the same book from which to form conclusions. See Myzz's post about the level 7 teleport spell.

The whip example has no related examples to draw upon. Teleport does. Therefore I would examine what Teleport does in relation to character level before I settled on any ruling, house rule or not.

Claiming that because its not in the book its ok, or that because it doesn't specifically say it doesn't, is jumping the gun.

On the contrary, shadow step doesn't necessarily have anything to do with teleport because the exact means of the movement it provides are not mentioned. Notably, it's not even a spell.

Comparing a class ability of one level to a spell of another is a fallacy. Classes are not equal in all ways, and gain different tactics to various levels of competence at a wide variety of levels. Even more notably, shadow step has no equivalent (bonus action movement between two shadows within 60') and therefore cannot be compared.

And even more notably in regards to this argument, shadow step has absolutely nothing to do with teleport. Last I checked, teleport isn't a bonus action movement with a 60' range limit. It is superior to shadow step in some ways and inferior in others, but overall is more useful due to not requiring shadows nor having very limited range.

In short, do not compare shadow step to teleport because the two are unrelated. Do not compare it to a spell because it does not consume a spell slot (nor even Ki) and no spell duplicates its effect.

Finally, and I think this bears repeating, the PHB does not specify whether shadow step can take passengers (willing or unwilling). That one sentence alone, which is by now proven true, necessarily leads to the following conclusions.

Usage of shadow step with passengers is firmly up to the DM
There is no "correct" or "RAW" ruling, no matter how much anyone would like there to be

To make a long post short: ask your DM. /thread

[CrusaderJoe]

Now that I've (hopefully) convinced you that D&D 5e will not be played the same at every table, let's examine shadow step. Does the book say you can take passengers, willing or unwilling? No. Does the book say you can't? Once again, no. Like the whip example above, it's firmly up to the DM.

I think I've shown that the tactic is neither game breaking, easy to use, nor necessarily advantageous even if executed. Thus, there is no compelling game-balance reason to ban it. Exact rulings on whether it is usable and how it may be used will vary by table. For me personally, if it comes up I'll rule it as viable provided the user succeeds on a grapple check against the target.

You have done no such thing and I don't see you ever being able to do as such with such horribly faulty premise of Air Bud being used as the basis of your argument.


Allowing a character to teleport an enemy 60 feet upward without a save causes damage comparable to other options available to the character at the same level. Teleporting an enemy 100 miles upward is death to any enemy that cannot survive space, reentry, and landing. If you allow it, you should look at other instant death spells and provide similar limitations, because any enemy hit by a sufficiently powerful teleport will find itself somewhere incompatible with continued existence.

The damage isn't the only issue with this. Allowing the air bud clause to work breaks down this game.

Hey, my weapon attack doesn't say that I can't cast true polymorph at level 1 so thus I must be able to.

[cildan]

Forgive me if this is mentioned elsewhere in the thread but I think if a DM allows this, the players would have accept it can be done to them as well.

[Myzz]

The base damage isn't that different from what the character could do at that level...

Now, your monk is up on a 60ft wall, overlooking a 60ft cliff. He Shadow Steps some poor sucker up and away from the wall so that said sucker drops 180ft...

The what ifs can get terribly out of control quite fast... add in a volcanic pit...

The argument simply becomes, well it looks cooler to Shadow Step them, then actually push them off...

AND the ability specifically says you can TELEPORT... does not say enter darkness at one location and appear at a different patch of darkness up to 60ft. It specifically says you can TELEPORT. Therefore you apply the rules of teleport and then apply the more limiting rules given for shadow step. Neither of which allow you to take someone who is not willing.

[Easy_Lee]

Forgive me if this is mentioned elsewhere in the thread but I think if a DM allows this, the players would have accept it can be done to them as well.

As with all rulings, the answer would have to be yes. I discussed that a little bit earlier, though my posts are a bit long.

[Abithrios]

It looks like some people commented while I was editing my previous post.


You have done no such thing and I don't see you ever being able to do as such with such horribly faulty premise of Air Bud being used as the basis of your argument.



The damage isn't the only issue with this. Allowing the air bud clause to work breaks down this game.

Hey, my weapon attack doesn't say that I can't cast true polymorph at level 1 so thus I must be able to.

I would not allow the true polymorph weapon attack thing in any game expected to last more than one session.

Any game that lacks an exhaustive list of available options has a certain amount of open-endedness, so will contain at least a bit of calvinball. I am not arguing for full air bud. I am arguing for rule of fun. If the air bud principle leads your group to fun in a particular case, and I think it will in this case, allow it. If the air bud principle would reduce fun in a particular case, and I think the true polymorph sword is a good example, thanks for that, then reject it.

If you regard this as a test case for the air bud principle as a whole, then of course you have a good reason to be careful about allowing the trick.

On the other hand, if you regard this as an issue on its own, then the individual details of the case become more important. Does allowing this one trick break the game?

Answering that question requires looking at the specifics. What is the opportunity cost of using it with a character who is built around it? (Is it even worth the action cost? Is it so good you would be a fool to waste your turn making normal attacks?). What is the opportunity cost of specializing in it rather than a similar option? (Should a shadow monk invest in the str needed to pull it off? Should every shadow monk do so?) What is the opportunity cost of getting access to the trick at all? (Will the other members of the party envy the shadow monk this ability and grow unhappy as a result?)

I think most of those questions have favorable answers. I am not sure it is worth the cost, which seems like a good thing from a balance perspective.


The base damage isn't that different from what the character could do at that level...

Now, your monk is up on a 60ft wall, overlooking a 60ft cliff. He Shadow Steps some poor sucker up and away from the wall so that said sucker drops 180ft...

The what ifs can get terribly out of control quite fast... add in a volcanic pit...

The argument simply becomes, well it looks cooler to Shadow Step them, then actually push them off...

AND the ability specifically says you can TELEPORT... does not say enter darkness at one location and appear at a different patch of darkness up to 60ft. It specifically says you can TELEPORT. Therefore you apply the rules of teleport and then apply the more limiting rules given for shadow step. Neither of which allow you to take someone who is not willing.

Normal grapple rules let you push people off cliffs, so if there is a fight near a cliff over lava, check all the characters' athletics modifiers, not just the monk's.

Also, if the monk falls too far, they take damage too.

Does the monk ability require the same use of somatic and verbal components? Action cost? Does teleport require a spell component pouch or arcane focus? I don't think monks say funny words to do their magic, except for European style monks, who are members of the cleric class and don't even know kung fu.

[Easy_Lee]

You have done no such thing and I don't see you ever being able to do as such with such horribly faulty premise of Air Bud being used as the basis of your argument.



The damage isn't the only issue with this. Allowing the air bud clause to work breaks down this game.

Hey, my weapon attack doesn't say that I can't cast true polymorph at level 1 so thus I must be able to.

You're the only one who mentioned the air bud clause. So far as I can tell, air bud has nothing to do with anything. Thus I can only assume you're deliberately trying to drive this conversation off-topic.

Regarding polymorph, you're joking right? Shadow step allows movement from A to B, just like dashing or being pushed or riding a mount. None of those things says you don't bring anyone you're grappling along for the ride, and none would question that the grappled is dragged along.

My argument is that this is up to the DM. Yours is that everyone should do it your way. What part of rule 0 don't you understand? What part of "if the rules don't specify, then it's up to the DM" is unclear? What part of shadow step makes you think of air bud?

[Fwiffo86]

On the contrary, shadow step doesn't necessarily have anything to do with teleport because the exact means of the movement it provides are not mentioned. Notably, it's not even a spell.

You are correct that it is not a spell. It does however say Teleport up to 60 feet away. You don't get any more specific about movement than that. And while it isn't a spell, it certainly behaves as one (lacking any other relatable example).



Comparing a class ability of one level to a spell of another is a fallacy. Classes are not equal in all ways, and gain different tactics to various levels of competence at a wide variety of levels. Even more notably, shadow step has no equivalent (bonus action movement between two shadows within 60') and therefore cannot be compared.


I agree that not all class abilities are made equal. That is the fundamental reason for classes. However it can be arguable that spells of all sorts are "class abilities" and are easily comparable to abilities that pseudo-mimic spells.



And even more notably in regards to this argument, shadow step has absolutely nothing to do with teleport. Last I checked, teleport isn't a bonus action movement with a 60' range limit. It is superior to shadow step in some ways and inferior in others, but overall is more useful due to not requiring shadows nor having very limited range.


Except that it specifically says you teleport up to 60 feet away. I would expect a spell of 7th level to be significantly superior to an ability gained in the 3rd level spell range (5-6th level). More to the point, if the superior version of the same movement type doesn't allow passengers, why would the inferior one?



In short, do not compare shadow step to teleport because the two are unrelated. Do not compare it to a spell because it does not consume a spell slot (nor even Ki) and no spell duplicates its effect.


How is a spell, and an ability that mimics a spell unrelated? Not the same, certainly. But they are definitely related and comparable.



Finally, and I think this bears repeating, the PHB does not specify whether shadow step can take passengers (willing or unwilling). That one sentence alone, which is by now proven true, necessarily leads to the following conclusions.

Usage of shadow step with passengers is firmly up to the DM
There is no "correct" or "RAW" ruling, no matter how much anyone would like there to be

To make a long post short: ask your DM. /thread

I am in no way saying anything about your ruling suggestion. I am saying allowing or disallowing based solely on "because it doesn't say you can't" is premature at best. Ill advised at worst.

[Easy_Lee]

AND the ability specifically says you can TELEPORT... does not say enter darkness at one location and appear at a different patch of darkness up to 60ft. It specifically says you can TELEPORT. Therefore you apply the rules of teleport and then apply the more limiting rules given for shadow step. Neither of which allow you to take someone who is not willing.

The ability does not reference the teleport spell, or any spell for that matter. Nor does it really have anything to do with that spell, as the range, action used, and allowed targets are different no matter how you interpret it.

What part of "this ability is not a spell" don't you understand? You're hammering that same point with absolutely no basis, and have apparently ignored most of this thread.

[Easy_Lee]

I am in no way saying anything about your ruling suggestion. I am saying allowing or disallowing based solely on "because it doesn't say you can't" is premature at best. Ill advised at worst.

Read my full posts. Did I say any DM who does not allow it is wrong? Did I say that, because this unrelated spell says whatever, we must read the ability this way? Did I attempt to prolong this thread long after it was resolved?

No, no, and no. I said the book does not say, therefore ask your DM. The fact that people are still arguing about whether this is firmly up to the DM baffles me.

[Fwiffo86]

Read my full posts. Did I say any DM who does not allow it is wrong? Did I say that, because this unrelated spell says whatever, we must read the ability this way? Did I attempt to prolong this thread long after it was resolved?

No, no, and no. I said the book does not say, therefore ask your DM. The fact that people are still arguing about whether this is firmly up to the DM baffles me.

I agree with the last statement. I did get the impression that you were arguing in favor of your assertion that you can warp-suplex people simply because it doesn't say you can't. This opinion was formed over several of your posts, not a single post. If I was wrong I am sorry.

[Myzz]

The ability does not reference the teleport spell, or any spell for that matter. Nor does it really have anything to do with that spell, as the range, action used, and allowed targets are different no matter how you interpret it.

What part of "this ability is not a spell" don't you understand? You're hammering that same point with absolutely no basis, and have apparently ignored most of this thread.

it says teleport in the description... you are in fact ignoring the actual description, in an attempt to justify what you want it to say. (or in this case what it doesn't say).

If it said you dash, would you avoid looking at the Dash action because it does not fit with what you want it to..?

I am not ignoring any of this thread, nor any part of the description. Can you say the same?

[Easy_Lee]

it says teleport in the description... you are in fact ignoring the actual description, in an attempt to justify what you want it to say. (or in this case what it doesn't say).

If it said you dash, would you avoid looking at the Dash action because it does not fit with what you want it to..?

I am not ignoring any of this thread, nor any part of the description. Can you say the same?

Many spells say teleport. However, if we were suoposed to use the teleport rules, then the shadow step ability would say "as the teleport spell". That is the language used when something mimics a spell.

I'm glad you mentioned dash, because that's another source bonus action movement (for monks and rogues) which does not specify whether clothing, possessions, or grappled creatures are brought along. I tend to think that yes, they would be. I also tend to think that, if you teleport from A to B, and the exact means of teleport targets you (like dash) and does not specify whether anything else comes along (again, like dash) then it's firmly up to the DM what specifically is teleported.

I've made my case for why DMs should consider allowing this. I've demonstrated that the book does not disallow it. And I've said several times that yes, it is firmly up to the DM, like everything else.

Most of my arguments are pretty opinion-based, but I feel pretty good about this one.

Edit: "can you say the same" made me think of skyrim. I guess that makes me the imperial.

[Easy_Lee]

I agree with the last statement. I did get the impression that you were arguing in favor of your assertion that you can warp-suplex people simply because it doesn't say you can't. This opinion was formed over several of your posts, not a single post. If I was wrong I am sorry.

I meant to argue that it's not directly stated one way or the other, and gave an argument for why I feel DMs should consider it. I can see how my motives would be unclear here, so I'm sorry for that and hold no grudge. The only major point I really wanted to get across was that there isn't enough evidence to outright discount it, and say any DM who allows it is going against the rules. I think it's a fun tactic, a clever use of mechanics, and I'll probably use it against my players.

[Myzz]

DM's are left to do whatever they want... They are allowed to 'break' the rules anyway they see fit. And if your DM lets you use this ability in the way you have described, power to you...

AND every spell, or spell like ability, that references Teleport would inherently use the same rules and mechanics of teleport, otherwise there is not reason to use the word teleport. Each of those spells or spell like abilities would have further limitations, enhancements or rules regarding how it would differ...

Also... your initial premise is flawed:
grappled entities do not equal your possessions. Grabbing something that someone else is holding does not equal you now possessing the item completely. inanimate objects do not get saves to be teleported... sentient things would. Physically subduing (grappled) someone because you re bigger and stronger does not mean you just broke their will... and can now do whatever you please with them.

Theoretically you could argue that you could grab BBEG's armor then shadow step away with it and now he is left naked and vulnerable...

[Abithrios]

it says teleport in the description... you are in fact ignoring the actual description, in an attempt to justify what you want it to say. (or in this case what it doesn't say).

If it said you dash, would you avoid looking at the Dash action because it does not fit with what you want it to..?

I am not ignoring any of this thread, nor any part of the description. Can you say the same?

As a matter of editorial style, 3.5 rule books consistently italicize the names of spells. I can think of a few examples of that style choice in the 5e PHB (e.g. certain warlock invocations refer to eldritch blast with italics). I am not familiar with the books to know if they keep the style consistently in 5e. If they do, then that is evidence that the class feature does not inherit all the options (taking multiple friends) and limitations (not taking enemies, spell components) not otherwise specified (shorter range, shadowy locations only, etc).

If a rule mentions that something produces light, I would not assume it stops producing light after the same duration as the spell by that name, nor would I assume it produces as much heat as an equally bright flame, unless I have reason to believe otherwise.

[Easy_Lee]

As a matter of editorial style, 3.5 rule books consistently italicize the names of spells. I can think of a few examples of that style choice in the 5e PHB (e.g. certain warlock invocations refer to eldritch blast with italics). I am not familiar with the books to know if they keep the style consistently in 5e. If they do, then that is evidence that the class feature does not inherit all the options (taking multiple friends) and limitations (not taking enemies, spell components) not otherwise specified (shorter range, shadowy locations only, etc).

If a rule mentions that something produces light, I would not assume it stops producing light after the same duration as the spell by that name, nor would I assume it produces as much heat as an equally bright flame, unless I have reason to believe otherwise.

This, basically. Plenty of spells and some abilities use the word teleport without inheriting anything from the spell teleport. As further evidence that shadow step is not the spell teleport, consider how much earlier players may acquire shadow step. And, as further evidence, consider that there is a shadow monk ability which mimics a spell. That spell is pass without trace, and in the case of the monk ability, it specifically references the spell.

I'm not saying that automatically means the tactic is possible. I'm saying the lack of a definite ruling makes this firmly up to the DM. As such, there is no "correct" ruling on this.

Me personally, I am a DM, am not currently a player, and will probably use this tactic against my players. What say you now, Myzz?

[Myzz]

As a matter of editorial style, 3.5 rule books consistently italicize the names of spells. I can think of a few examples of that style choice in the 5e PHB (e.g. certain warlock invocations refer to eldritch blast with italics). I am not familiar with the books to know if they keep the style consistently in 5e. If they do, then that is evidence that the class feature does not inherit all the options (taking multiple friends) and limitations (not taking enemies, spell components) not otherwise specified (shorter range, shadowy locations only, etc).

If a rule mentions that something produces light, I would not assume it stops producing light after the same duration as the spell by that name, nor would I assume it produces as much heat as an equally bright flame, unless I have reason to believe otherwise.

very good point and well put.

However, it does not follow that type of movement named would allow you to do something that the original movement so named doesnt allow, because it doesnt specifically say you cant. It does follow that since you are using the same method of magical movement that you should not ignore the type of movement by that name and in the absence of qualifiers not check that said movement.

In your example of Light... if something produces light, but does not give a range to which it produces light where would you go to look for an answer? Especially when you know that the Light Spell gives a specific value? Would you ignore similar effects? No you would check similar methods of light and compare their radius values and choose one that most closely approximates the source of light you were referencing. Does that light pass through walls? It doesnt say it can not, so it must be able to, is ridiculous...

On the topic at hand, no teleport mechanic in the game allows you to teleport someone unwillingly... why would Shadow Step deviate from that?

[Myzz]

Me personally, I am a DM, am not currently a player, and will probably use this tactic against my players. What say you now, Myzz?

then for fairness they should equally be able to use this tactic... And should be able to use any teleport power on any unwilling creature with no save...

why would 1 form of teleport (shadow step) allow you to do that and ALL other forms of teleport would not?

By doing so you are inherently breaking that limitation on teleport, to apply it willy nilly just seems... silly...

[Easy_Lee]

then for fairness they should equally be able to use this tactic... And should be able to use any teleport power on any unwilling creature with no save...

why would 1 form of teleport (shadow step) allow you to do that and ALL other forms of teleport would not?

By doing so you are inherently breaking that limitation on teleport, to apply it willy nilly just seems... silly...

See, this is where you're not understanding how D&D works, Myzz. Just because ability A is similar to spell B does not mean they have the same requirements.

Shadow step has the word "teleport" in its description. That does not mean that it is the teleport spell. If it was, then that would be broke as all hell since shadow step is 6th level and teleport comes much later. Misty Escape also produces a teleport effect, and it has its own benefits (reaction, invisibility).

For the record, if one of my players grabbed someone and then performed a teleport spell, I would argue that they could force an unwilling target to succumb to the teleport by, essentially, dragging them through the portal. That makes a lot more sense than a spell which instantly asks a target "hey, are you okay with this?", gets its instantaneous response somehow, and only then works with that target's permission.

[Abithrios]

very good point and well put.

However, it does not follow that type of movement named would allow you to do something that the original movement so named doesnt allow, because it doesnt specifically say you cant. It does follow that since you are using the same method of magical movement that you should not ignore the type of movement by that name and in the absence of qualifiers not check that said movement.

In your example of Light... if something produces light, but does not give a range to which it produces light where would you go to look for an answer? Especially when you know that the Light Spell gives a specific value? Would you ignore similar effects? No you would check similar methods of light and compare their radius values and choose one that most closely approximates the source of light you were referencing. Does that light pass through walls? It doesnt say it can not, so it must be able to, is ridiculous...

On the topic at hand, no teleport mechanic in the game allows you to teleport someone unwillingly... why would Shadow Step deviate from that?

then for fairness they should equally be able to use this tactic... And should be able to use any teleport power on any unwilling creature with no save...

why would 1 form of teleport (shadow step) allow you to do that and ALL other forms of teleport would not?

By doing so you are inherently breaking that limitation on teleport, to apply it willy nilly just seems... silly...

This is where I apply purely gamist considerations. Allowing monks to teleport their enemies makes a new tactic possible, but not necessarily optimal. Allowing wizards to teleport their enemies means that wizards who can grapple and teleport to somewhere unpleasant that they can survive become a lot more powerful. Teleporting wizards can make the game turn into rocket tag in ways that teleporting monks cannot.

[Myzz]

...For the record, if one of my players grabbed someone and then performed a teleport spell, I would argue that they could force an unwilling target to succumb to the teleport by, essentially, dragging them through the portal. That makes a lot more sense than a spell which instantly asks a target "hey, are you okay with this?", gets its instantaneous response somehow, and only then works with that target's permission.

And therein lies the problem... you have deemed that its possible and are searching for a way to make it so, regardless of any facts before you.

AND in fact most things that are similar utilize the same mechanic. See wild shape and polymorph...

In this case you know how the mechanic works, as you have pointed out it does indeed say teleport in the description of how the ability works. You just ignore what that implies, because you don't think it should work that way.


I'm all for forceably teleporting people... I've played 2 Nightcrawler type characters in Heroes when the GM said we could use stop powers...

BUT in 5e DnD it says for Teleport... willing... like you said, it by itself is not overly unbalancing... But you are intentially breaking part of the teleport mechanic in 5e... you are also breaking the affecting others mechanic, there are few things that affect targets without giving them some save (PWK being the most obvious) and you are doing so with an at will ability acquired at level 6!

[CrusaderJoe]

Hmmm

So I have Shadow Jump and a adamantine box big enough to fit Big T, or hell one that will fit just me... I grab Big T, shadow jump into the box, then shadow jump without Big T.

Because shadow jump doesn't say I can't do this... I now have a very squished up Big T in a box.

I have my Wizard friend use telekineses to fling the box... Into the ocean or sun or whatever...

[Easy_Lee]

And therein lies the problem... you have deemed that its possible and are searching for a way to make it so, regardless of any facts before you.

AND in fact most things that are similar utilize the same mechanic. See wild shape and polymorph...

In this case you know how the mechanic works, as you have pointed out it does indeed say teleport in the description of how the ability works. You just ignore what that implies, because you don't think it should work that way.


I'm all for forceably teleporting people... I've played 2 Nightcrawler type characters in Heroes when the GM said we could use stop powers...

BUT in 5e DnD it says for Teleport... willing... like you said, it by itself is not overly unbalancing... But you are intentially breaking part of the teleport mechanic in 5e... you are also breaking the affecting others mechanic, there are few things that affect targets without giving them some save (PWK being the most obvious) and you are doing so with an at will ability acquired at level 6!

Just to be clear, you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say anything you just posted, nor did your post have anything to do with anything I said. The only things I've said are why I don't think it's broken, why the book doesn't prevent it, and that it's up to the DM. At no point did anyone but you talk about a "teleport mechanic" central to all D&D teleport spells.

You seem to be confusing the word teleport with the spell Teleport. Despite my efforts, you obstinately refuse to see that the word and the spell are two different things. You seem intent on forcing a level 6 ability to match a high level spell, in spite of numerous people pointing out both how silly that is and how they have nothing to do with each other.

As an example, not all spells which use the word "fire" do the same thing. Similarly, not all spells which use the word "teleport" do the same thing. There is no "teleport mechanic" in D&D, there are only spells which cause a teleport effect.

I'm not going to argue with you about this any longer because you're derailing the living hell out of this thread.

[Easy_Lee]

Hmmm

So I have Shadow Jump and a adamantine box big enough to fit Big T, or hell one that will fit just me... I grab Big T, shadow jump into the box, then shadow jump without Big T.

Because shadow jump doesn't say I can't do this... I now have a very squished up Big T in a box.

I have my Wizard friend use telekineses to fling the box... Into the ocean or sun or whatever...

If you can grapple Big T, then sure, probably. But that's not terribly easy to do.

If you're talking about forcing Big T into a Big Box, then teleporting that box into the sun...well, you can already do that, technically. You'd just need to stick the Big Box behind Big T and use a strong repelling eldritch blast on him. But that assumes your DM will let you get away with it, which is one more reason why I don't think this warrants as much debate as it's gotten.

[Hak Gwai]

Off-topic, any unfairly advantageous usage of mechanics. By unfairly I mean there is no equal or counter to the technique. Take shadowcraft mages in 3.5. They could, by design, make partially real illusory copies of spells. That led to free wishes that were real enough to be the true thing. It's not really an exploit by the traditional definition, since partially real spells were intended. But the fact that they could do that meant that anyone else not playing with a similarly broken strategy could barely contribute. I'd call that an exploit.

Compare that to master thrower rogues from 3.5. You could, after 13 or so, throw dozens of skip rocks per round, hitting multiple targets' touch AC with sneak attack damage on every one. That probably wasn't intended. But, in 3.5, you had to do that kind of thing in order to keep up with your party members if they were casters.

In short, I think whether a tactic is exploitive or not depends heavily on the situation in which it's used. Exploit has a very negative connotation, particularly in D&D, which is why I feel that distinction should be made.

On topic, I agree the carrying weight rule is reasonable. Bear in mind that the monk has to select a target no more than one size larger, succeed on a hit, succeed on a grapple, use his bonus action, and have shadows conveniently placed at both the launch point and destination in order to pull this trick off at a minimum, possibly adding a jump check.

With requirements like that, and considering how low most Monks' grapple checks are anyway, combined with a maximum potential damage of about 9d6 in ideal circumstances, the only way I can see this trick being potentially useful is if it's used with hazards. Teleporting someone into a cage or over a pit of lava could be useful, but those are extremely situational (and, most importantly, would make for a great story).

As someone playing a Shadow Monk, I'd be interested in looking at it from this PoV, but turning it around. Assume if a Monk grapples an opponent, they can pull them along in a Shadow Step. But, what if the Monk is the one being grappled? Shadow Step for me has equally as MUCH potential utility when it comes to making a Shadow Monk essentially un-grappleable in low light conditions. Ogre grabs you and starts twisting you in a knots? Simply step out of it. It seems to me if you can grab and drag, then being grabbed would also mean the opponent grappling YOU could potentially come along if you stepped, or, if too heavy for your carrying capacity, possibly stop you from stepping altogether. Neither is something I would really want to have happen. I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions on this.

One thing I would like to add is that Stunning Strike is monstrous for grappling and disarming. The Stunned condition stipulates auto-fails on Str and Dex checks, so Monks can actually be extremely effective in this regard once they get a stun on.

Also, what kind of novel ways can people think of to use vertical Shadow Step aside from straight damage? One thing that occurs to me is stepping up and dropping a net. And does Slow Fall actually mean a Slow Fall, thereby mitigating the damage of landing on someone?

Lots of interesting opportunities for tactics discussion with this ability! :smallsmile:





.

[MaxWilson]

Just as the title says. Is it possible to say, grapple someone, jump as high as you can vertically, then at the peak, shadowstep another 60 feet up?

You can in my games.

Edit: RE falling on someone, though, if you do you will take 6d6 falling damage because you can't use Slow Fall. I told my player if he decides to fall on someone human-sized from that height, they'll split the 6d6 between them. So he could theoretically grapple someone, Shadow Jump, and punch them once more on the way down for a grand total of 10d6+5 (40) damage, at a cost to himself of 3d6 (10) HP, falling prone, a successful attack roll, and a successful Athletics contest. As long as it's dark.

[HoarsHalberd]

RAW you teleport naked, leaving your clothes and equipment behind. RAI you teleport yourself and your equipment. DM fiat may allow you to teleport others but it would be a home ruling. (When I DM I would allow teleporting with unconscious/dead beings the monk can lift.) Air Bud rules lawyering could result in going back to RAW as a compromise.

EDIT: I don't think you see the potential for abuse here, if you can teleport unwilling targets then you can definitely teleport willing ones. Opening up all sorts of munchkin level abuse with a rogue friend, hide and sneak attack.

[Mandragola]

As someone playing a Shadow Monk, I'd be interested in looking at it from this PoV, but turning it around. Assume if a Monk grapples an opponent, they can pull them along in a Shadow Step. But, what if the Monk is the one being grappled? Shadow Step for me has equally as MUCH potential utility when it comes to making a Shadow Monk essentially un-grappleable in low light conditions. Ogre grabs you and starts twisting you in a knots? Simply step out of it. It seems to me if you can grab and drag, then being grabbed would also mean the opponent grappling YOU could potentially come along if you stepped, or, if too heavy for your carrying capacity, possibly stop you from stepping altogether. Neither is something I would really want to have happen. I'd be interested in hearing other people's opinions on this.

One thing I would like to add is that Stunning Strike is monstrous for grappling and disarming. The Stunned condition stipulates auto-fails on Str and Dex checks, so Monks can actually be extremely effective in this regard once they get a stun on.

Also, what kind of novel ways can people think of to use vertical Shadow Step aside from straight damage? One thing that occurs to me is stepping up and dropping a net. And does Slow Fall actually mean a Slow Fall, thereby mitigating the damage of landing on someone?

Lots of interesting opportunities for tactics discussion with this ability! :smallsmile:.

I'm interested in this sort of thing too. So if somebody captures my shadow monk and puts her in a cage, she can clearly shadowstep out of it when it gets dark. But what if she's tied up?

[Fwiffo86]

I'm interested in this sort of thing too. So if somebody captures my shadow monk and puts her in a cage, she can clearly shadowstep out of it when it gets dark. But what if she's tied up?

Blinded would work I think. Blindfold the monk and tie their hands together.

[Mandragola]

Well sure, but the monsters would have to know that I could shadowstep and how to prevent it for that to work.

[heavyfuel]

I'm interested in this sort of thing too. So if somebody captures my shadow monk and puts her in a cage, she can clearly shadowstep out of it when it gets dark.

"Clearly" is used very loosely here. Anyone that doesn't have access to a Continual Flame spell or a blindfold after locking up your 6th level character was never really a threat to you.


But what if she's tied up?

Depends on your DM. RAW? The ropes stay and you arrive naked at your location. RAI, the rope is an attended object, and i teleported with you.


Blinded would work I think. Blindfold the monk and tie their hands together.

It does work. The language of the ability reads that you need to see the place you're teleporting to.


you can teleport up to 60 feet to an unoccupied space you can see that is also in dim light or darkness.

[Easy_Lee]

RAW you teleport naked, leaving your clothes and equipment behind. RAI you teleport yourself and your equipment. DM fiat may allow you to teleport others but it would be a home ruling. (When I DM I would allow teleporting with unconscious/dead beings the monk can lift.) Air Bud rules lawyering could result in going back to RAW as a compromise.

EDIT: I don't think you see the potential for abuse here, if you can teleport unwilling targets then you can definitely teleport willing ones. Opening up all sorts of munchkin level abuse with a rogue friend, hide and sneak attack.

Firstly, one interpretation of RAW is that you teleport naked, but that's not what the book says happens. The book says you teleport, and does not specify what comes along. Allowing people to shadowstep without losing their clothes is not a houserule; the DM is not "giving" the players something, as you implied, by letting them keep their clothes.

Again, shadowstep does not specify what comes along. This contrasts with certain teleport spells which specify that unwilling targets are not brought along (though it does not specify why). This makes one wonder exactly how teleportation functions (elf simulator physics 101).

Regardless, if one is able to teleport while bringing along sentient weapons and other held items, it follows that one could drag an unwilling target along on a teleport with a successful grapple check. This not only makes more sense (drag them through the portal), but also fits better with various D&D books where characters are transported against their will. See Pirate King by RA Salvatore, where Drizzt is transported to one of the realms of hell when he falls for a wizard's trick.

As far as abuse, I don't believe such a thing exists. Any tactic used by the players can be used against them. A DM has infinite opportunity to make the players regret abusing a mechanic.

And if they players are smart enough to coordinate in the way you suggested, then they deserve to be rewarded for the creativity and teamwork.

[Mandragola]

Again, with the blindfold and continual flame, those are things you'd do if you knew that you'd caught a shadow monk, and knew how shadowstep worked. Or maybe you'd kill the monk straight off because they were too much of a liability.

But assuming for the moment that the other issues with shadowstep are ok (it's dark and I can see where I'm going) then what happens? I'm picturing your standard dungeon cell, with manacles attached to the wall and a character manacled to them. Can I not teleport because I'm attached to the manacles, do I teleport out of the manacles, or do I teleport the entire castle 60' to the left?

I know the rules don't give a hard and fast answer by the way. I'm after opinions on whether shadowstep is an escape mechanism from being tied up, grappled or sat on by yo mamma.

[heavyfuel]

Well sure, but the monsters would have to know that I could shadowstep and how to prevent it for that to work.


Again, with the blindfold and continual flame, those are things you'd do if you knew that you'd caught a shadow monk, and knew how shadowstep worked. Or maybe you'd kill the monk straight off because they were too much of a liability.

But assuming for the moment that the other issues with shadowstep are ok (it's dark and I can see where I'm going) then what happens? I'm picturing your standard dungeon cell, with manacles attached to the wall and a character manacled to them. Can I not teleport because I'm attached to the manacles, do I teleport out of the manacles, or do I teleport the entire castle 60' to the left?

I know the rules don't give a hard and fast answer by the way. I'm after opinions on whether shadowstep is an escape mechanism from being tied up, grappled or sat on by yo mamma.


Which is why people need to stop assuming real world tactics would be applied in D&D. D&D is a world filled with magic, and people in the world (NPCs mostly) would know of this and take the necessary precautions. I don't think I've ever locked up someone without first stripping them naked, tying them up, impeding their finger, blindfolding them, gagging them, casting Continual Flame near them (or at the very least improvising some sort of semi-permanent light source such as some cheap oil), and then not letting them rest to regain whatever abilities they might have.

Because it would be so expected from people to do just that, it wouldn't even be considered paranoia, just simple, standard procedure.


Firstly, one interpretation of RAW is that you teleport naked, but that's not what the book says happens. The book says you teleport, and does not specify what comes along. Allowing people to shadowstep without losing their clothes is not a houserule; the DM is not "giving" the players something, as you implied, by letting them keep their clothes.

Not true.

The book says you teleport. In which interpretation of the word "you" does it mean "you, your clothes, armor, weapons, backpack with everything in it, the lantern tied to your belt, your quiver, and the arrows inside it"?

It's stupid RAW, but it's RAW nonetheless, and the DM is giving something to the player by allowing that, of course, such giving shouldn't be considered a favor.

[Easy_Lee]

Again, with the blindfold and continual flame, those are things you'd do if you knew that you'd caught a shadow monk, and knew how shadowstep worked. Or maybe you'd kill the monk straight off because they were too much of a liability.

But assuming for the moment that the other issues with shadowstep are ok (it's dark and I can see where I'm going) then what happens? I'm picturing your standard dungeon cell, with manacles attached to the wall and a character manacled to them. Can I not teleport because I'm attached to the manacles, do I teleport out of the manacles, or do I teleport the entire castle 60' to the left?

I know the rules don't give a hard and fast answer by the way. I'm after opinions on whether shadowstep is an escape mechanism from being tied up, grappled or sat on by yo mamma.

With spells and other such in D&D, I think it would be reasonable to assume that prisoners are often bound and gagged at a minimum if one suspects that the prisoner is capable of any special abilities. Even an ogre gaoler might be savvy enough to bend a sheet of metal around upper half of the person's head, depending on whether he's dealt with casters before. Then again an ogre might just tear out the player's eyes and tongue, so we may not want to go down that route.

That said, the DC to burst a chain is low enough that it's already very difficult to keep even the fighter imprisoned. An enterprising DM will likely have to improvise, perhaps by keeping imprisoned players unconscious and at negative HP, but stabilized. There might be a poison for that. Of course, that assumes that the DM doesn't want the players to attempt escape (which can be a fun adventure in and of itself).

[Hak Gwai]

Blinded would work I think. Blindfold the monk and tie their hands together.

Blinded would definitely stop Shadow Step. Let's hope they just use a blindfold :smallyuk: The discussion also suggests the idea of a good situation-specific disguise for a shadow monk being to pretend to be a blind open hand monk. Monk is one of the few character classes wherein pretending to be blind could actually be convincing.

As per bursting manacles, one thing my player is having crafted is manacles with razor-sharp curved blades around the inside circumference. Break them? Sure, if you don't mind losing your hands. Being able to stun and slip manacles on is a great tactic for monks that will work with many medium humanoid-shaped creatures.

[HoarsHalberd]

Firstly, one interpretation of RAW is that you teleport naked, but that's not what the book says happens. The book says you teleport, and does not specify what comes along. Allowing people to shadowstep without losing their clothes is not a houserule; the DM is not "giving" the players something, as you implied, by letting them keep their clothes.

Again, shadowstep does not specify what comes along. This contrasts with certain teleport spells which specify that unwilling targets are not brought along (though it does not specify why). This makes one wonder exactly how teleportation functions (elf simulator physics 101).

Regardless, if one is able to teleport while bringing along sentient weapons and other held items, it follows that one could drag an unwilling target along on a teleport with a successful grapple check. This not only makes more sense (drag them through the portal), but also fits better with various D&D books where characters are transported against their will. See Pirate King by RA Salvatore, where Drizzt is transported to one of the realms of hell when he falls for a wizard's trick.

As far as abuse, I don't believe such a thing exists. Any tactic used by the players can be used against them. A DM has infinite opportunity to make the players regret abusing a mechanic.

And if they players are smart enough to coordinate in the way you suggested, then they deserve to be rewarded for the creativity and teamwork.

Firstly, no, read as written it only says you teleport. Interpretation is not part of RAW. It is the literal meaning of the words in the order it says. Interpreting what the words were trying to say is RAI.

Secondly I didn't say it was a home ruling to allow clothes and possessions to be brought through. That is the obvious RAI. The reason teleport specifically says unwilling targets can't be teleported is because it says that more than one person can be teleported in the first place. Shadowstep doesn't say it -doesn't- cast darkness on the target area, because there is no reason to assume it might, likewise there is no reason to believe one could shadowstep with another reason. As for why teleport doesn't allow unwilling targets, gamist reason: teleport people straight up. Simulationist: the spell is complicated and goes wrong on it's own, thus any sentient(scientific definition) resistance causes the spell to fail.


Thirdly plane changing isn't teleportation. It is apparently an easier spell to cast, because it can be cast on an unwilling opponent and because it has no chance of going wrong on it's own. Apparently the spell weaving required to slip between planes is easier to do than moving matter within a plane.

Finally, it is far easier to DM when people aren't rules lawyering. In order to punish them for a combat manipulation of the rules I would have to place them in a dangerous situation and probably push for a TPK. In this case, having attendants to the BBEG who runs, grapples the back line and teleports them to melee range to get curb stomped. Saying players should be rewarded for arguing into existence a loophole that isn't there is like saying the people who put work into glitching outside the map on video games should be rewarded.

[Epoch]

Here is how I would handle this situation as a DM. Note, I am NOT saying what I think the RAW or the RAI is, but simply what I would do if this happened at my table.

So, my player asks me: "Is it possible to say, grapple someone, jump as high as you can vertically, then at the peak, shadowstep another 60 feet up?"

I say "sure!" and we proceed thusly:

1.) Make a grapple check (lets assume the player wins).

2.) Make an athletics check to jump, keeping in mind that you are attempting to jump while keeping a creature grappled who is actively struggling against you. So, for a medium humanoid I would make this a DC 20 check (less for a smaller creature being grappled, more for a larger creature). Let's assume the player passes this check.

3.) The Monk Shadowsteps 60 feet up, dragging the creature with him. At this point, the player uses a free action to let go of the creature, so that their Monk can slow fall safely to the ground.

4.) My response: "The creature is going to use a reaction to try to hold on to you." My justifcation here is that the creature, suddenly finding itself "magically" transported 60 feet into the air, is going to instictively try to cling to the thing that made the ground go away. So we roll another grapple check. If the player wins, he succesfully lets go of the creature and watches it go *splat*. If the creature wins it manages to hold on, and they both plummet to the ground.

5.) One of two things happens. One: If the creature held on, these two will be struggling as they fall through the air. So I make the player roll one more grapple check to try and get on top of the creature before they hit the ground. Whoever wins is on top. The poor bastard who is on bottom takes an additional 1d6 of damage, while the one on top subtracts 1d6 damage (No, falling on top of someone does not completely negate the damage. At this height, you are going to get hurt. Badly. And landing on top of a water-filled meatsack of bone isn't going to help much).

OR

If the player let go succesfully, they enjoy a pleasant slow fall to the crumpled remains of their opponent below.

End of Line

This way the Monk gets to do their super cool Nightcrawler-esque Shadow Monk thing, without it turning into something they can just spam over and over without fear of repercussion. Plus, I think it adds just the right amount of stress for the Character doing it. Thoughts?

[Mandragola]

That does sound cool. Personally to be honest I don't think you can bring anyone with you. I'd rule it like that because otherwise it makes things like castle walls too easy. A monk could ferry his party places and I don't see that as reasonable. "You" teleport means just you, I think.

[Easy_Lee]

That does sound cool. Personally to be honest I don't think you can bring anyone with you. I'd rule it like that because otherwise it makes things like castle walls too easy. A monk could ferry his party places and I don't see that as reasonable. "You" teleport means just you, I think.

What happens when a monk just sticks a teammate in a bag of holding, then teleports with the bag?

What does it look like when he teleports, and why is it impossible to drag someone along (or follow someone through a closing portal, for that matter)?

If a monk is carrying the lifeless body of a friend, can he take that along with him? If not, then why was he able to carry his sleeping bag and other supplies?

Do teleports only care about the total number of souls transferred, and not about things like sentient weapons, total mass, or pocket dimensions that contain other creatures?

If a shadow monk takes his bag of holding into his portal, does it create some kind of planar rift similar to dropping a bag of holding into a portable hole?

There are a lot of questions to be answered about shadow step before it will really make sense (Elf Sim physics 101).

[Mandragola]

Well a bag of holding is a magic item, and for sure you can do cool stuff with it. You can sneak into the bad guy's bedroom and let barbarians out, and get up to all kinds of mischief. Magic item combos are for this sort of thing.

The other stuff is more down to DM approval, or possibly some kind of clarification. But I read "you" as "you and your stuff" because that is simpler in play and nobody wants naked monks teleporting around. It's a bit annoying there's no clarification on what other stuff (if any) you can bring with you.

[Easy_Lee]

Well a bag of holding is a magic item, and for sure you can do cool stuff with it. You can sneak into the bad guy's bedroom and let barbarians out, and get up to all kinds of mischief. Magic item combos are for this sort of thing.

The other stuff is more down to DM approval, or possibly some kind of clarification. But I read "you" as "you and your stuff" because that is simpler in play and nobody wants naked monks teleporting around. It's a bit annoying there's no clarification on what other stuff (if any) you can bring with you.

Yeah, it's a shame that there's no RAW way to know. I definitely prefer a system with well-defined, far-reaching, deep and concise mechanics. WhatAmIDoingHere.jpg

[heavyfuel]

Yeah, it's a shame that there's no RAW way to know. I definitely prefer a system with well-defined, far-reaching, deep and concise mechanics. WhatAmIDoingHere.jpg

I know, right? They went pretty overboard with having vague rules in this edition, pretty much the opposite of 3.x.

They should just release an Errata that contains Attended Items rules... It would solve so many RAW vs RAI discussions